Attachment to Independent Case Review Report For CDRU # 735 Case file # 95-286722.
Material Examiner: Malone (RQ)
Remarks:
Case resulted in a guilty plea, no testimony transcript.
CRM - 4167
ri a7 ' = =F 1
INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT
Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson
Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber
Review commenced at: 11:00 AM (Time), 11/05/01 (Date)
File #: 95-286722
Laboratory #{s}: 90206045
Examiner(s) & Symbols Reviewed Not Reviewed Reviewed Not Reviewed RQ x ‘9 a q | oO C)
QO 0 0 G
Materials Reviewed
Trial testimony transcript(s) of: Not available Testimony Date(s): Papes: Laboratory Repori(s): Laboratory Number: 90206045 Date: Mar 15, 1989 Laboratory Number: Date: Laboratory Number: Date: Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ and unknown technician Laboratory Number: Page | of 3
CRM - 4168
Enitials: ou hv
Was any other material reviewed? X Yes 0 No
If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: submitting agency letter dated }-27-89
Results of Review
File#: 95-286722 item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1-Q3
Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:
Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)? OYes ONo XO Unable to Determine
2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequately documented in
the bench notes? O Yes XGWNo O Unable to Determine
Review of Testimony:
Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
XXQ Transcript not available.
3) Testimony consistent with the taboratory report(s)? OYes GNo OO Unable to Determine
4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? OYes ONo OUnable to Detennine
5} Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? OYes GQNo O Unable to Determine
Page 2 of 3
Initials: Hh
Comments (Set forth by above question #, if applicable. Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)
#1: It appears that the unidentified technician performed much of the examination, such as physical description,
microscopic examination and solubility testing of the fibers, instead of RQ.
#2: Documentation is poor. The notes are not dated and are in pencil and not ink. The spectra are not properly
labeled. Sufficient testing was performed to support the reported conclusion.
Review completed at: 11:30AM (Time), 11/05/01 (Date)
Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 0.50 hr.
[ hereby certify that | conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review are fully documented on this report consisting of a total 3 pages.
é 11/05/2001 / (Signature) (Date)
Pape 3 of 3
Initials: Mk A